Fashioning Michael Field: Michael Field and Late-Victorian Dress Culture Sarah Parker Katharine Bradley (1846-1914) and Edith Cooper (1862-1913) have become increasingly well known as important fin-de-siècle poets who published collaborative lyrics and verse dramas under the shared pseudonym of ‘Michael Field’. Aunt and niece, they dedicated themselves to a life-long partnership that was both romantic and creatively productive, beginning with Callirhoë, published in 1884 — the first work to be published under their collaborative male pseudonym. In her brief biography, We Are Michael Field (1998), Emma Donoghue remarks that the two women were ‘equally interested in feminine clothes and masculine nicknames’.1 In the growing body of critical work on Michael Field, scholars have tended to focus exclusively on the latter. However, in the present article, I turn the critical spotlight onto the former: the significance of Bradley and Cooper’s interest in feminine gowns, hats and jewellery. I propose that Bradley and Cooper’s passionate engagement with late-Victorian dress culture represents a hitherto overlooked dimension of their carefully constructed poetic identity as aesthetic writers.2 In tandem with the ‘masculine’ pseudonym that has attracted so much critical discussion, the donning of feminine gowns and the deliberate cultivation of an aesthetic sartorial style was a distinctively ‘feminine’ way in which Bradley and Cooper participated in the aesthetic movement. Moreover, fashion played a key role in mediating Bradley and Cooper’s homoerotic intimacy. 1 Emma Donoghue, We Are Michael Field (Bath: Absolute Press, 1998), p. 31. 2 In addition to the present article, this neglect is soon to rectified by Ana Parejo Vadillo’s chapter ‘Living Art: Michael Field, Aestheticism and Dress’ in the forthcoming essay collection Crafting the Woman Professional in the Long Nineteenth Century: Artistry and Industry in Britain, eds. Kyriaki Hadjiafxendi and Patricia Zakreski (Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, 2013). 1 Frequently, when they tried on new dresses and exchanged hats and jewellery as gifts, these co- authors were inspired to write poems in praise of each other’s beauty. Thus, in a number of different ways, fashion played a key role in reconciling the separation between the public identity of ‘Michael Field’ and the private world of Bradley and Cooper. Focussing on Bradley and Cooper’s gowns brings a vital tangibility to Michael Field, which can help us to understand the relationship between their private and public identities. Of course, their expensively bound published volumes are indeed tangible, bearing testament to their public identity as aesthetic writers publishing collaboratively under a male pseudonym. But in critical studies of their work, their lives as two women have often been viewed as obscured by this male pseudonym — as a private life to be uncovered, in order to unearth an authentic female (and lesbian) identity: the supposedly secret feminine side of Michael Field. However, I propose that concentrating on Bradley and Cooper’s dress in fact deconstructs (rather than reinforces) these fixed notions of the public/masculine or the feminine/private. I argue that Bradley and Cooper’s feminine clothing was performative — playing a vital part in Bradley and Cooper’s participation in aestheticism. In this sense, Bradley and Cooper’s clothing, like the thirty volumes of journals they collected under the title of ‘Works and Days’, traverses the division between public performance and private expression. The first section of this essay sets Michael Field firmly in the context of fin-de-siècle dress culture. I look at actual diary accounts of what the poets, and their friends and acquaintances, were wearing. These descriptions are numerous and incredibly detailed, and frequently combine with similarly intricate descriptions of décor, flowers and book-covers. In this sense, Bradley and Cooper’s interest in fashion clearly chimes with their embeddedness in aestheticism. As Talia Schaffer notes, home decoration and fashion were two arenas in which women asserted their own claim to be aesthetic in the late Victorian period: 2 For the aesthetes who attempted to introduce beauty into everyday life, British dress was an obvious target for reform. Dress, they felt, should be art, not fashion. [...] Although Wilde was the most visible of the aesthetic fashion reformers, women actually wrote most of the aesthetic fashion manuals. These female aesthetes claimed that they had made clothing into art, and they displayed the elite education associated with the connoisseur.3 Michael Field’s utilization of aesthetic fabrics and fashions alongside their literary aestheticism also bears out Christine Bayles Kortsch’s argument that late-Victorian women experienced a ‘dual literacy’ in words and fabric.4 Kortsch observes that Victorian girls were simultaneously educated in the skills of sewing and reading as part of their rudimentary curriculum. For example, they were taught to read the pattern of stitches that made up a gown, or to learn the alphabet by stitching a sampler. Thus, whether they were working-class women who darned socks or upper- class women who undertook fancy work, Victorian women learned to ‘interpret the social significance of cloth’.5 Kortsch’s notion of ‘dual literacy’ is highly pertinent to late-Victorian aesthetic culture’s frequent reading of clothes and dressing of literature in general — and to Michael Field in particular. Whereas Kortsch’s study explores how New Women writers dressed their protagonists, I focus on what Bradley and Cooper chose to wear. Bradley and Cooper’s beautiful gowns, hats and jewellery, alongside their pseudonym, provided a different yet complementary 3 Talia Schaffer, The Forgotten Female Aesthetes: Literary Culture in Late-Victorian England (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000), p. 103. 4 Christine Bayles Kortsch, Dress Culture in Late-Victorian Women’s Fiction: Literacy, Textiles, and Activism (Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, 2009), p. 4. 5 Kortsch, Dress, p. 9. 3 way of constructing their poetic identity, one highly in keeping with their wider aesthetic strategies and desire for each other. Artistic Dress: Michael Field and Late-Victorian Fashion Many scholars have observed that during the latter half of the nineteenth century women’s dress was in the process of radical transformation, with principles of health and aesthetics at the heart of the new reform movements. In the earlier part of the century, as Stella Mary Newton has commented, with the brief exception of the ‘Directoire’ or empire style of the early 1800s, the fashion of the 1840s and 1850s was incredibly restrictive: partly because it was laced very tightly around the ribs, partly because of the number of petticoats that were necessary to build the skirt out to the required bell-shape, but above all because the sleeve was set, not on the top of shoulder but into a line two or three inches below it, on the upper arm.6 By the 1860s, members of the Pre-Raphaelite movement recognized the need to reform women’s dress, drawing on earlier styles from medieval, Renaissance and Ancient Greek art. Dante Gabriel Rossetti, for example, copied close-fitting fourteenth-century styles, believing that contemporary styles created what Patricia A. Cunningham states was thought to be ‘unnatural’ female silhouette.7 This new ‘Artistic’ dress for women, as Edwina Ehrman notes, was characterized by the wearing of flowing, gathered or draped gowns: ‘simple dresses in plain 6 Stella Mary Newton, Health, Art & Reason: Dress Reformers of the Nineteenth Century (London: John Murray, 1974), p. 31. 7 Patricia A. Cunningham, Reforming Women’s Fashion, 1850-1920: Politics, Health and Art (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2003), p. 106. 4 fabrics draped from the shoulders, with unconstricted waists and sleeves that did not inhibit movement’.8 Artistic dress eschewed the artificial ‘enhancements’ of the bustle or corset, in favour of a looser, more comfortable silhouette, based on medieval-style gowns. Such gowns featured large, puffed sleeves and smocking at the waist, wrists and neckline, to emphasise the natural lines of the body. In addition to medieval or Renaissance-inflected styles, shapes also took inspiration from supposedly exotic cultures such as Ancient Greece and the East, with kimonos and Indian pyjamas growing in popularity. Favoured fabrics included wool, silk and velvet, usually decorated with artistic designs, including flowers (such as sunflowers) or peacock feathers.9 Hand-embroidery of such designs was preferred, as a reaction to the sewing machine, and vegetable dyes were preferred to synthetics, which were seen as too garish and artificial to be truly beautiful, following John Ruskin’s pronouncement that: ‘No colour harmony is of a high order unless it involve indescribable tints’.10 This trend led the aesthetic fashion critic Mary Eliza Haweis to pronounce: ‘No artistic colours are unduly bright; they are all more or less dull’.11 These details, according to Kortsch, ‘reflected the philosophical origins of artistic dress’, which valued ‘the handmade over the machine-made, the one-of-a-kind over the mass-produced’.12 Despite the Pre-Raphaelites’ efforts to reform dress, however, most fashionable styles of the 1870s and 1880s still required a tight corset. The bustle had replaced the crinoline, so the skirt was now snugly fitted around the legs, further restricting movement: ‘the process of getting dressed in the 1880s’, Cunningham comments, ‘was a time-consuming ritual that resulted in a 8 Edwina Ehrman, ‘Women’s Dress’, in The Cult of Beauty: The Aesthetic Movement 1860-1900, eds. Stephen Calloway and Lynn Ferderle Orr (London: V&A Publishing, 2011), 206-07 (p. 206). 9 See Pauline Weston Thomas, ‘The Aesthetic Dress Movement’, Fashion Era.com <http://www.fashion- era.com/aesthetics.htm> [accessed 21 May 2012]. 10 Quoted in Mary Eliza Haweis, The Art of Dress (London: Chatto & Windus, 1879), p. 108. 11 Haweis, Art, p. 110. 12 Kortsch, Dress, p.